C++ OOP: Class knows its index in the container - prevent overwrite? - c++

Question

I have a class idx_aware that goes into a container container, which wraps around a std::vector. When the class is added to container, container sets a pointer to itself in idx_aware, as well as the index of idx_aware in its internal memory storage.
The index is not going to change until the container is destroyed or idx_aware is removed; idx_aware needs to know about its container and its index, because it has some methods that require both to work.
Now this introduces the following problem: when I get a non-const reference to an idx_aware class contained in container, I could assign to it another idx_aware class, which could have a different index. The intention would be assigning all the fields and keeping the index as it is.
#include <vector>
#include <limits>
#include <iostream>
class container;
// Stores a std::size_t field, which can be set only by subclasses.
class with_idx {
std::size_t _i;
public:
with_idx() : _i(std::numeric_limits<std::size_t>::max()) {}
operator std::size_t() const { return _i; }
protected:
void set_idx(std::size_t i) { _i = i; }
};
// Knows its index and its container
class idx_aware : public with_idx {
container const *_container;
int _some_field1;
float _some_field2;
public:
void foo() {
// Do stuff using _container and _i
}
private:
friend class container;
};
// Wraps around a std::vector
class container {
std::vector<idx_aware> _data;
public:
idx_aware &operator[](std::size_t idx) {
// Need non-const access to call foo
return _data[idx];
}
idx_aware const &operator[](std::size_t idx) const {
return _data[idx];
}
std::size_t add(idx_aware const &item) {
// Here it could potentially reuse a freed position
std::size_t free_slot = _data.size();
// Ensure _data is big enough to contain free_slot
if (_data.size() <= free_slot) {
_data.resize(free_slot + 1);
}
// Assign
_data[free_slot] = item;
_data[free_slot].set_idx(free_slot);
_data[free_slot]._container = this;
return free_slot;
}
};
int main() {
container c;
idx_aware an_item;
std::size_t i = c.add(an_item);
std::cout << c[i] << std::endl; // Prints 0
idx_aware another_item; // Created from somewhere else
// I want to set all the data in idx_aware, but the
// index should stay the same!
c[i] = another_item;
std::cout << c[i] << std::endl; // Prints numeric_limits<size_t>::max()
// Now container[i] is broken because it doesn't know anymore its index.
return 0;
}
One possible workaround would be to change with_idx in such a way that when set_idx is called, a flag is set that prevents assignment and copy operator to overwrite the _i property, like this:
class with_idx {
std::size_t _i;
bool _readonly;
public:
with_idx() : _i(std::numeric_limits<std::size_t>::max()), _readonly(false) {}
with_idx(with_idx const &other) : _i(other._i), _readonly(false) {}
with_idx &operator=(with_idx const &other) {
if (!_readonly) {
_i = other._i;
}
return *this;
}
operator std::size_t() const { return _i; }
protected:
void set_idx(std::size_t i) {
_i = i;
if (i != std::numeric_limits<std::size_t>::max()) {
// This has been set by someone with the right to do so,
// prevent overwriting
_readonly = true;
} else {
// Removed from the container, allow overwriting
_readonly = false;
}
}
};
This would have the consequence of returning, after assignment, a reference to an idx_aware class with unchanged index.
idx_aware &not_in_container1 = /* ... */;
idx_aware &not_in_container2 = /* ... */;
idx_aware &in_container = /* ... */;
not_in_container1 = in_container = not_in_container2;
// std::size_t(not_in_container_1) != std::size_t(not_in_container_2)
Is there a design pattern that can model this situation in a better way? My searches were not successful.
Are there other unwanted consequences of overriding the assignment operator in this way? The limitation I pointed out in the previous example does not look too "bad".
Is there an easier solution? I thought about writing some proxy object to replace the idx_aware & return type of operator[].
Experience tells that when C++ does not do what you intend, you are likely to be misusing OOP...

Answer 1

Robert's comment suggested me this solution.
Why would the contained object know about its container? To be able to perform actions such as foo and provide shorthand methods that otherwise would require to have access to the container.
Let's take this functionality away from the contained object; the contained object is just data payload. Instead, let's make operator[] return not the contained object, but some sort of iterator, a wrapper around the contained object, which knows the container and the index, and once dereferenced returns the actual contained object.
class was_idx_aware {
int _some_field1;
float _some_field2;
};
class container {
std::vector<idx_aware> _data;
public:
class idx_aware_wrapper {
container const *_container;
std::size_t _idx;
public:
idx_aware_wrapper(container const &c, std::size_t i)
: _container(&c)
, _idx(i)
{}
was_idx_aware const &operator*() const {
return _container->_data[_idx];
}
was_idx_aware &operator*() {
return _container->_data[_idx];
}
void foo() {
// Do stuff using _container and _idx.
}
};
idx_aware_wrapper operator[](std::size_t i) {
return idx_aware_wrapper(*this, i);
}
/* .... */
};
This allows quick access to any data in was_idx_aware, and the wrapper class can be augmented with all the methods that require interaction with the container. No need to store and keep indices up to date or override assignment operators.